Forgot your password?
Cyhist Mar 14 1997 C
Document Actions
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 06:57:06 -0500
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: andrew stellman <roo@ANON.RAZORWIRE.COM>
Subject: Re: CYHIST Digest - 8 Mar 1997 to 9 Mar 1997
In-Reply-To: <199703140338.TAA12023@proxy2.ba.best.com> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Bob Bickford wrote:
>This is such a bizarre non-sequitur that I have to assume that I was somehow unclear in my original comments. The person to whom I was responding had asked a question about display systems that implicitly relied upon image fusion in two human eyes to achieve what he called a three-dimensional display. I pointed out that this is properly called a stereoscopic display, precisely because it relies upon the human neural system connected to the eyes to merge and fuse the two separate display images, and that therefore the displays themselves cannot properly be described as three-dimensional.
oh, i see. i'd definitely agree with this. my goof.
>the two. Also, the use of the phrase "input device" with reference to the recipient of the information presented by a display device strikes me as bizarre in the extreme, and I have no idea what you could possibly mean by such a construction.
i misunderstood your earlier point -- i thought you were just imposing the restriction that a display couldn't be 3D if you couldn't interact with it in a 3D manner, i.e. requiring a 3D input device (like some sort of head position tracker) to go along with a 3D display.
oh, speaking of 3D input devices, we got a wireless 3D gyroscopic mouse for our conference room at work. pretty run-of-the-mill these days. any pointers to the history of 3D input devices? i mentioned a hacked-together device that my father used in the sixties to do chemical model rotation and manipulation. it was basically three potentiometers, one for each axis, probably hooked up to an AtoD and piped right into the mainframe (a CD6600. mmmhmm, Control Data.).
andrew
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: andrew stellman <roo@ANON.RAZORWIRE.COM>
Subject: Re: CYHIST Digest - 8 Mar 1997 to 9 Mar 1997
In-Reply-To: <199703140338.TAA12023@proxy2.ba.best.com> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Bob Bickford wrote:
>This is such a bizarre non-sequitur that I have to assume that I was somehow unclear in my original comments. The person to whom I was responding had asked a question about display systems that implicitly relied upon image fusion in two human eyes to achieve what he called a three-dimensional display. I pointed out that this is properly called a stereoscopic display, precisely because it relies upon the human neural system connected to the eyes to merge and fuse the two separate display images, and that therefore the displays themselves cannot properly be described as three-dimensional.
oh, i see. i'd definitely agree with this. my goof.
>the two. Also, the use of the phrase "input device" with reference to the recipient of the information presented by a display device strikes me as bizarre in the extreme, and I have no idea what you could possibly mean by such a construction.
i misunderstood your earlier point -- i thought you were just imposing the restriction that a display couldn't be 3D if you couldn't interact with it in a 3D manner, i.e. requiring a 3D input device (like some sort of head position tracker) to go along with a 3D display.
oh, speaking of 3D input devices, we got a wireless 3D gyroscopic mouse for our conference room at work. pretty run-of-the-mill these days. any pointers to the history of 3D input devices? i mentioned a hacked-together device that my father used in the sixties to do chemical model rotation and manipulation. it was basically three potentiometers, one for each axis, probably hooked up to an AtoD and piped right into the mainframe (a CD6600. mmmhmm, Control Data.).
andrew
______________________________________________________________________
